Interesting. If this happened, you'd have to be a trusting soul to think the chief of staff was some loose cannon who acted on his own. But this sounds all too familiar - political "pay to play" contributions are common, especially for bond firms:

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Federal prosecutors are asking if New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s former chief of staff told a state agency to hire a bond adviser that donated $100,000 to Richardson’s political committees, people familiar with the matter said.

A witness who testified before a federal grand jury in Albuquerque last month said he was asked if David Contarino, the former chief of staff, ordered New Mexties the same bond advisorico Finance Authority officials to hire Beverly Hills, California-based CDR Financial Products Inc. Another person familiar with the investigation said Contarino, 47, is a subject of the inquiry and that prosecutors are looking at whether he solicited contributions from firms that worked on finance authority bond deals.

Contarino “is a very effective political professional,” said Edward Romero, a former U.S. ambassador to Spain and the national finance chairman for Richardson’s 2008 presidential campaign. “He’s a hard worker.” Romero said he would be surprised if Contarino did anything improper.

By the way, Will Bunch ties the same bond advisor to a recent Philadelphia investigation. Hmmm.

DOWNLOAD (41)

PLAY (42)

It probably goes without saying that I avidly support appointing Latinos to key positions within the Obama administration, but I've always been hesitant about Bill Richardson. Not only is it well known behind the Democratic scenes that he has certain horndoggy vulnerabilities in his personal life, but he's always carried a certain air of corruptibility peculiar to Western politicians. I know that scent well and it always made me leery.

So I can't say I'm sorry to see him bow out, because my gut instinct was that he spelled T-R-O-U-B-L-E for Democrats generally and the Obama Administration in particular.

His press conference today did nothing to alter that impression, especially when he flatly refused to discuss the investigation into the influence-peddling matter and wouldn't even say whether or not he had lawyered up. It all smells very fishy to me.

Note that Richardson wants us to think he had been perfectly forthcoming with the Obama transition team about the case. Turns out that's not true either.

I'm just glad all this happened before confirmation hearings arrived.

New Mexican Independent:

Gov. Bill Richardson is withdrawing his name for consideration as U.S. Commerce Secretary, citing a federal investigation into a California company being investigated by the FBI, NBC News is reporting.

A call by the Independent to the governor’s spokesman was not immediately returned.

The NBC story said that Richardson “has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.”

Richardson naturally denies any wrongdoing in giving state contracts to campaign donors, but the damage has been done. Steve Clemons looks at what President-elect Obama's next move might be:

So, that's the second person who didn't make it through the process. Penny Pritzker was the first in line, but she also removed her name.

I think that the Obama team needs someone who understands the economy and the vital need to reinvest in high wage job growth creation, who understands the importance of redesigning America's domestic social contract between labor, firms, capital and government, and who is familiar with business -- and liked by labor.

There are very few who fit that bill, and Leo Hindery -- who was senior economic advisor to the John Edwards campaign and then was an economic advisor to the Obama campaign as well and authored the interesting book It Takes a CEO -- is a real stand out who the Obama team should consider for Commerce.

(h/t Politics TV)  Transcripts courtesy of Huffington Post

New Mexico Governor and former presidential contender Bill Richardson throws his support Barack Obama and Joe Biden, subverting the detractors' calls over experience to show that what matters is judgment:

Because at a time when young men and women are dying for our country overseas, America faces a question worthy of silent reflection. And the American people are watching to see how we answer it. What is the best measure of a person's capacity to protect this country? There are often moments of great importance that go unnoticed in the unruly course of history.

And six years ago, there was a moment of great clarity and foresight. And if the world had known to listen, perhaps today there would be less heartache and sorrow. In October 2002, on a small stage before a small crowd, Barack Obama gave a speech that was barely noticed at the time.

In the midst of great fervor-brought about by an administration that questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with it-Barack Obama called the coming war what it was: "a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He was right!

Continue reading »

MSNBC:

New Mexico - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.

The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor. Read on...

Richardson is the second former Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Senator Obama. This could help him with hispanic voters and perhaps sway some of Richardson's supporters to the Obama campaign. There is some debate about endorsements and their true impact on an election. Richardson's endorsement certainly doesn't hurt Obama, but does it make a real impact?

Download | play Download | play

It's no secret that Chris Matthews has a mancrush on Senator John McCain, but I think he needs to take a step back and look at reality -- stat. During his Power Rankings on Monday's Hardball, Matthews contends that because John McCain is expected to do well on Super Tuesday and is likely to be considered his party's nominee for President, and has Rudy Giuliani stumping for him, he will LOOK presidential, therefore, he has the best shot to win the White House in '08.

So because McCain LOOKS presidential, tens of millions of Democrats will suddenly go brain dead and vote for a man who is running on a platform that runs counter to what they believe in and put another warmongering, anti-choice Republican who is despised by the base of his own party in the White House for another four years.

I put together a little mashup of the segment because by and large, there was little to be found outside the ordinary -- what is outside the ordinary (and logical thought) is Tweety and Howard Fineman somehow trying to make people believe that McCain already looks like the presumptive Commander In Chief and that both Obama and Clinton will have a hard time competing against him. Fineman actually brings up the Bay of Pigs...

It won’t be official until later today, and there’s some question about whether his campaign will officially end or simply be “suspended” indefinitely, but it appears that Bill Richardson is poised to withdraw from the Democratic presidential race.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is pulling out of the presidential race, after coming in fourth in both the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucuses, according to people with knowledge of his decision.

Mr. Richardson made the decision after returning to New Mexico Wednesday and meeting with his top advisers, they said. He is expected to make an announcement on Thursday.

His withdrawal removes a candidate who had a hard-edged message of immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, but tempered it with humorous television advertisements that emphasized his wide-ranging resume in a clever way.

Amusing ads notwithstanding, Richardson’s campaign struggled to connect. In Iowa, he finished with 2% of the caucus vote, despite heavy campaigning and an ad blitz that began last summer. In New Hampshire, where he spent considerable time and was eyeing a third-place finish, he finished a distant fourth, winning less than 5% of the vote.

It’s not my intention to kick a guy when he’s down, but it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider why Richardson floundered.

Continue reading »

I can't say this makes a lot of sense to me unless all the other candidates follow suit. Otherwise, it seems like a "cut off your nose to spite your face" strategy. David Shuster and Chuck Todd of MSNBC discuss:

Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)

AP: Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic presidential primary.

The three filed paperwork Tuesday, the deadline to withdraw from the ballot, said Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for the Michigan Secretary of State's office.

All of the Democratic candidates already have agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke Democratic National Committee rules when it moved its primary ahead of Feb. 5. The decision by Obama, Edwards and Richardson undercuts the validity of the contest.

Other Democratic candidates had until the end of the day to decide if they'll stay on the ballot.

UPDATE: Per MSNBC, Joe Biden has opted to pull out as well.

UPDATE #2: Dennis Kucinich has issued a statement asking to be left off the ballot as well. 

Bill Richardson asks for some perspective... (link fixed)

Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson has issued a challenge to his fellow Democrats contenders:

In the most recent debate, [Richardson] asked the other major candidates a clear question: how many troops would you leave behind and for how long? We have yet to hear an answer.

All the major Democratic candidates say they are eager to end this war, and they all say they don't believe there is a military solution in Iraq. Why, then, do they maintain that we must leave an indefinite number of troops behind for an indeterminate amount of time to work hopelessly towards a military solution everyone says doesn't exist?

It is time to get a straight answer from all the other candidates: how many troops would you leave behind? For how long?

Campaign ploy? Sure. But it's an answer that we deserve to have nonetheless. Chris Bowers has more:

The more I think about this dodge from Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq, the angrier I become. Why is an inquiry into how many troops they intend to leave in Iraq a hypothetical question not worthy of an answer, but inquiries into how much their health care plans will reduce the cost of insurance premiums a hypoethical question worthy of prominently displaying an answer to on your website? [..]

The refusal to provide an estimate for how many troops Clinton, Edwards and Obama has nothing to do with a refusal to engage in hypotheticals. Presidential campaigns are clearly willing to dish out hypothetical numbers all the time on issues like health care and energy costs, or issues like reducing poverty and pollution, as long as their internal hypothetical numbers make them look good. As such, the only conclusions I can draw from repeated unwillingness of these campaigns to estimate how many troops they would leave in Iraq is that they either have no idea how many troops they would leave in Iraq, or the actual estimated figure would make these campaigns look very, very bad to the base. Either conclusion is disturbing should serve as the operating assumptions for every Democratic voter until these leading campaigns provide an actual estimate.

Download | play Download | play

Pam's House Blend:

Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you. Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question. [..]

UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.

He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."

He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."

This is disappointing to say the least...I'm a big fan of Gov. Richardson but this was just fundamentally stupid. You don't go to a GLBT debate and not have this answer prepped. There's no excuse in the 21st century for a Democrat to fumble this one.

From his press release:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson today drew a sharp distinction between his views on the war in Iraq and the views of the other major candidates running for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination. Governor Richardson addressed the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC, and clearly showed why his plan to end the Iraq is bold and the best course of action.

"I applaud my fellow Democratic candidates for taking on President Bush in the Congress," said Governor Richardson."But there is a fundamental difference in this campaign -- and that's how many troops each of us would leave behind. I would leave zero troops. Not a single one."

Governor Richardson reiterated his call for Congress to use its constitutional authority to de-authorize the war and bring all American troops home by the end of this calendar year.